SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS: Truth or Obfuscation?

[Josiah Thompson]

Doug Weldon

Barb:

I received your message. I will try to get the cd out to you in the next couple of days. I am hopeful our postings can be helptul to everyone. I must admit that I had some harsh feelings about you and Jerry when you both posted:

The predictables...Fetzer and White, lauded her for that post ...lol.

It's funny because they do not like Pamela ... she is the nemesis of

their hero Doug Weldon. It's such a 2 faced game, which Pamela plays

too, as all here already know .... the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

What's funny is that now Weldon has come forth complaining about our

article, and it is Tink and Jerry and I taking Weldon on ... him being

very critical of Pamela. So maybe Tink and Jerry and I will be

Pamela's new best friends now....hahahaha!

Fetzer, Weldon and the spiral nebula are not the central issue. That is a sideshow generated by the same folks who brought you faked moon landings and rays from space on 9/11. It’s good that you’ve taken them on because they discredit the entire jfk research community and your efforts should be recognized and applauded

I sometimes come on strong becuase I have strong feelings about the people and evidence involved in this matter. I will ask hard questions but welcome the same in return. Please tell me if I cross a line because I do not intend to do so. I do not proclaim myself as an expert "on" anything except "on", not "in" my own opinion. When I began this venture in 1978 I only wanted to discover a truth for myself. That has been my gameplan. It has not been for my own notierity or to see how many people I could convince.

My best,

Doug Weldon

I've been sitting on the sidelines and listening intently. You should know, Doug, that when I said I wanted to "investigate" Glanges I meant nothing serious or sinister. I had not a clue who she was. I think Pamela said she was a nursing student. Probably, I should have said "I want to find out who Glanges is. I've never heard of her before." That would have expressed my meaning more accurately.

Here's a really simple view of how I see it: Altgens 5 shows an undamaged windshield at Z 255. Altgens 6 shows the windshield damaged subsequent to the head shot. The placement and form of the damage seen in Altgens 6 is replicated in the Frazier photo of damage taken a few hours later. Since Dudman claimed in the New Republic he had seen a hole in the windshield, it was only natural and proper for Rowley's report that came out later to stress the reports of agents who had passed their hands over the damage and found there was no through-and-through hole. Dudman and Taylor are the most persuasive witnesses for a through-and-through hole. Both have made it clear that they did not observe a through-and-through hole. This seems to form a kind of comprehensive package. On the other side are the witnesses you mentioned. I don't believe that just because someone is a police officer they are a trained observer.

I guess I'm just wondering why on balance you weigh this evidence so differently.

I too have enjoyed listening in on your conversation with Barb and Jerry. Not only civil conversation and discussion, but discussion between smart people who are without guile.

Josiah Thompson

[Bernice Moore]

On the contrary, Barb, I am happy to see this posted here, especially this part:

Kudos to Lifton for that ... many are intimidated there

to speak the courage of their convictions lest they end up on the

receiving end of the baloney from a small minded few.

(Bolds mine.)

It is always this way-- how very sad. We miss alot of thought from the silent majority who do not wish to be branded disinfo agents,or neocons, for disagreeing.

Thank you, Kathy. And I agree. The more the mainstream people speak out, the less power to intimidate and divert & distract from real discussion the "predictables" have. Never too late to turn the tide. We're both moms ... you know the parenting skills for dealing with tantrums....

Bests to you!

Barb :-)

BUT PRAY TELL GIRLS WHY LEAVE OUT THE MENTION OF THE ZILLION OF TIMES ON THE BOARDS that are still available to view THE ALTERATIONISTS HAVE BEEN JUMPED ON..for their view...SO ''We miss alot of thought from the silent majority who do not wish to be branded THAT GOes BOTH WAYS SOME WHO HAVE OR WOULD AGREE DO NOT POST BECAUSE OF SUCH PAst and continuing performances do not try to make this out as sooooo one sided as usual kathy as that is simply not true..if anyone is in doubt simply do a search...excuse the caps thankyou b..

[Jack White]

Doug Weldon

Barb:

I received your message. I will try to get the cd out to you in the next couple of days. I am hopeful our postings can be helptul to everyone. I must admit that I had some harsh feelings about you and Jerry when you both posted:

The predictables...Fetzer and White, lauded her for that post ...lol.

It's funny because they do not like Pamela ... she is the nemesis of

their hero Doug Weldon. It's such a 2 faced game, which Pamela plays

too, as all here already know .... the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

What's funny is that now Weldon has come forth complaining about our

article, and it is Tink and Jerry and I taking Weldon on ... him being

very critical of Pamela. So maybe Tink and Jerry and I will be

Pamela's new best friends now....hahahaha!

Fetzer, Weldon and the spiral nebula are not the central issue. That is a sideshow generated by the same folks who brought you faked moon landings and rays from space on 9/11. It’s good that you’ve taken them on because they discredit the entire jfk research community and your efforts should be recognized and applauded

I sometimes come on strong becuase I have strong feelings about the people and evidence involved in this matter. I will ask hard questions but welcome the same in return. Please tell me if I cross a line because I do not intend to do so. I do not proclaim myself as an expert "on" anything except "on", not "in" my own opinion. When I began this venture in 1978 I only wanted to discover a truth for myself. That has been my gameplan. It has not been for my own notierity or to see how many people I could convince.

My best,

Doug Weldon

I've been sitting on the sidelines and listening intently. You should know, Doug, that when I said I wanted to "investigate" Glanges I meant nothing serious or sinister. I had not a clue who she was. I think Pamela said she was a nursing student. Probably, I should have said "I want to find out who Glanges is. I've never heard of her before." That would have expressed my meaning more accurately.

Here's a really simple view of how I see it: Altgens 5 shows an undamaged windshield at Z 255. Altgens 6 shows the windshield damaged subsequent to the head shot. The placement and form of the damage seen in Altgens 6 is replicated in the Frazier photo of damage taken a few hours later. Since Dudman claimed in the New Republic he had seen a hole in the windshield, it was only natural and proper for Rowley's report that came out later to stress the reports of agents who had passed their hands over the damage and found there was no through-and-through hole. Dudman and Taylor are the most persuasive witnesses for a through-and-through hole. Both have made it clear that they did not observe a through-and-through hole. This seems to form a kind of comprehensive package. On the other side are the witnesses you mentioned. I don't believe that just because someone is a police officer they are a trained observer.

I guess I'm just wondering why on balance you weigh this evidence so differently.

I too have enjoyed listening in on your conversation with Barb and Jerry. Not only civil conversation and discussion, but discussion between smart people who are without guile.

Josiah Thompson

Am I to actually believe this admission?

Altgens 6 shows the windshield damaged subsequent to the head shot.

Jack

[Bernice Moore]

the link to martin hindrichs' information here on the forum in barb, jerry's and tink's article that i believe some have asked for... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...105#entry170238

b..

[Doug Weldon]

Doug Weldon

Barb:

I received your message. I will try to get the cd out to you in the next couple of days. I am hopeful our postings can be helptul to everyone. I must admit that I had some harsh feelings about you and Jerry when you both posted:

The predictables...Fetzer and White, lauded her for that post ...lol.

It's funny because they do not like Pamela ... she is the nemesis of

their hero Doug Weldon. It's such a 2 faced game, which Pamela plays

too, as all here already know .... the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

What's funny is that now Weldon has come forth complaining about our

article, and it is Tink and Jerry and I taking Weldon on ... him being

very critical of Pamela. So maybe Tink and Jerry and I will be

Pamela's new best friends now....hahahaha!

Fetzer, Weldon and the spiral nebula are not the central issue. That is a sideshow generated by the same folks who brought you faked moon landings and rays from space on 9/11. It’s good that you’ve taken them on because they discredit the entire jfk research community and your efforts should be recognized and applauded

I sometimes come on strong becuase I have strong feelings about the people and evidence involved in this matter. I will ask hard questions but welcome the same in return. Please tell me if I cross a line because I do not intend to do so. I do not proclaim myself as an expert "on" anything except "on", not "in" my own opinion. When I began this venture in 1978 I only wanted to discover a truth for myself. That has been my gameplan. It has not been for my own notierity or to see how many people I could convince.

My best,

Doug Weldon

I've been sitting on the sidelines and listening intently. You should know, Doug, that when I said I wanted to "investigate" Glanges I meant nothing serious or sinister. I had not a clue who she was. I think Pamela said she was a nursing student. Probably, I should have said "I want to find out who Glanges is. I've never heard of her before." That would have expressed my meaning more accurately.

Here's a really simple view of how I see it: Altgens 5 shows an undamaged windshield at Z 255. Altgens 6 shows the windshield damaged subsequent to the head shot. The placement and form of the damage seen in Altgens 6 is replicated in the Frazier photo of damage taken a few hours later. Since Dudman claimed in the New Republic he had seen a hole in the windshield, it was only natural and proper for Rowley's report that came out later to stress the reports of agents who had passed their hands over the damage and found there was no through-and-through hole. Dudman and Taylor are the most persuasive witnesses for a through-and-through hole. Both have made it clear that they did not observe a through-and-through hole. This seems to form a kind of comprehensive package. On the other side are the witnesses you mentioned. I don't believe that just because someone is a police officer they are a trained observer.

I guess I'm just wondering why on balance you weigh this evidence so differently.

I too have enjoyed listening in on your conversation with Barb and Jerry. Not only civil conversation and discussion, but discussion between smart people who are without guile.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah:

Thank you for your response. I thank you for clarifying the Glanges situation. I do believe it left a bad impression. I believe it would be constructive to indicate what you discovered about her. I give more credibility to Ellis, Glanges, and Whitaker than Dudman and Taylor because they were available to be questioned and their accounts tested. Ellis had a very distinquished career, including military intelligence. I do believe police officers are better trained observers than a newspaper reporter and I know nothing about Taylor's career beyond his documents. I know what was done to Dudman and how it affected him as I have noted. Also I believe Dudman's only question was the direction of the hole, not its existence. However, they all corroborated each other. The two people who viewed the windshield for the longest period of time, Taylor and Whitaker, both unequivocally described the hole in the exact same location. Yes, there were some differences among some of the witnesses but as you know in your career as a private investigator, that is always expected. You also are aware of how recanted accounts are treated in the legal system. Again, I don't want to be repetive but how does Taylor state with certainty in 1975 that there was a hole and this is labeled "Top Secret" and then his name soon after appears on an affidavit that is not classified as such. I don't want to repeat everything as I have made my points. I want people to understand that I approached this issue with some skepticism as my career has mainly consisted of a prosecution perspective and being on the "good" side of the criminal justice system.

I am one, whether I agree or disagree, who has highly respected your work and the contributions you have made to the understanding of what transpired in Dallas. I am not saying this in a patronizing way, but I am sincere. i even mailed your book to you years ago and you were kind enough to sign it for me. However, that appreciation would not prevent me from arguing points vigorously with you. I have found in my thirty one years of study and investigation that the only person who is going to agree with every position one has is oneself. It is a very lonely venture. I absolutely believe that I could have taken the witnesses and evidence and convinced any impartial jury beyond a reasonable doubt that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield. These people who shared their accounts with me, at times under the stress of great fear, wanted me to find answers for them. I could not keep a promise to many of them to do so within their lifetimes, but it is my major motivation to complete this. I appreciate your reply.

My best,

Doug Weldon

[Jack White]

Doug, we all appreciate your bending over backwards to be polite and civil.

However, a firmer position would be preferable, for instance, if you were standing before 12 jurors.

In that case a lawyer would say...

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury...you have just heard 15 witnesses tell you that they saw a

HOLE IN THE WINDSHIELD. My esteemed opponent presents what...a photo of a windshield with

a crack on it? Would YOU or any other reasonable person say that crack is a HOLE? No, a hole

is a hole; a crack is a crack. These witnesses have nothing to gain by lying and saying a crack

is a HOLE, do they?"

Thanks for all your dedication and hard work in search of the truth.

Jack

[Doug Weldon]

Doug, we all appreciate your bending over backwards to be polite and civil.

However, a firmer position would be preferable, for instance, if you were standing before 12 jurors.

In that case a lawyer would say...

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury...you have just heard 15 witnesses tell you that they saw a

HOLE IN THE WINDSHIELD. My esteemed opponent presents what...a photo of a windshield with

a crack on it? Would YOU or any other reasonable person say that crack is a HOLE? No, a hole

is a hole; a crack is a crack. These witnesses have nothing to gain by lying and saying a crack

is a HOLE, do they?"

Thanks for all your dedication and hard work in search of the truth.

Jack

Jack:

I thank you but I believe I have been firm and unequivocal but open to the views of others. I think I have made it clear that nothing has altered my view yet. The evidence speaks for itself. Civility is not an expression of weakness. I have been before hundreds of juries. I give respect where I believe it is due and I honestly have deep respect for people like Josiah. BTW Jack, it sounds like you would have been a good attorney.

Best,

Doug

[Jack White]

Doug, we all appreciate your bending over backwards to be polite and civil.

However, a firmer position would be preferable, for instance, if you were standing before 12 jurors.

In that case a lawyer would say...

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury...you have just heard 15 witnesses tell you that they saw a

HOLE IN THE WINDSHIELD. My esteemed opponent presents what...a photo of a windshield with

a crack on it? Would YOU or any other reasonable person say that crack is a HOLE? No, a hole

is a hole; a crack is a crack. These witnesses have nothing to gain by lying and saying a crack

is a HOLE, do they?"

Thanks for all your dedication and hard work in search of the truth.

Jack

Jack:

I thank you but I believe I have been firm and unequivocal but open to the views of others. I think I have made it clear that nothing has altered my view yet. The evidence speaks for itself. Civility is not an expression of weakness. I have been before hundreds of juries. I give respect where I believe it is due and I honestly have deep respect for people like Josiah. BTW Jack, it sounds like you would have been a good attorney.

Best,

Doug

Keep up the good work, Doug! You do your thing, and I will do mine. Your great work is appreciated. You are a true patriot and gentleman!

Jack

[Jerry Logan]

Hello Doug,

I've had a heavy day of real vs. cyber life so I'm not able to give the detailed reply your thoughtful post deserves. I'm going to reserve until I have more time/energy. However, I did want to make one quick correction. All of the Secret Service materials presented to the Warren Commission were initially classified. The official reason offered was because they contained information about SS policies and procedures that could possibly be used to compromise Presidential security. (Yes, I know, the horse had left the barn.) However, the materials were declassified in short order and available to anyone who visited the archives. Tink published Rowley's letter in an appendix to SSID and David Lifton spotted the reference to Taylor's report and had it in hand shortly thereafter. So the Taylor report was out in the open in 1967 at the latest. I understand what you're trying to say, but the fact is that the "hole in the glass" report was generally available and made well known by David Lifton while the recanting affidavit was classified and withheld from public view for more than 20 years. Even after it was declassified it remained unnoticed for more than ten years until I tripped over it.

Best to you,

Jerry

....Jerry gave an explanation of why he statement of Taylor was kept hidden but does not explain why Taylor's statement verifying that he had clearly seen a hole in the windshield was labeled "Top Secret" but the affidavit atating there was no hole was not.....

Edited January 13, 2010 by Jerry Logan

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jerry, Is there some reason why you have never responded to my questions about this? How about doing that now? Thanks.

Jerry, I'll bite. Let me begin by observing that Doug Weldon's appearance on blackopradio.com is available in the show's archives at http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html show #451, where we can draw from it. I expect it will be invaluable. For my edification, do you have ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003)? Because I will be citing references from all three, especially pages 161 to 175 of the first, pages 129 to 158 of the second, and page 436 of the third.

Are we in agreement that three windshields are involved: (1) the one on the car in the plaza, which was photographed by Altgens; (2) the new windshield that was installed by Ford when it dismantled and rebuilt the limousine; and (3) another windshield produced by the Secret Service, which it claimed was on the limousine in the plaza? If that claim were true, then (1) and (3) would have to be the same windshield. You can find photos of (1) and (3) on pages 149 and 157 of MURDER and on page 436 of HOAX, but (2) is not shown. OK?

Moreover, I take it that differences in some of the descriptions of the precise location of the windshield in by Bob Livingston or Richard Dudman, for example, do not show that there was no through-and-through hole in the windshield and that we are going to employ inference to the best explanation, where the hypothesis which, if true, confers the highest probability on the evidence is more likely to be true than its alternatives, where we are entitled to adopt the most likely explanation as true when sufficient evidence becomes available. OK?

Accepting an hypothesis as true in the sense of science, however, is always tentative and fallible, insofar as as the acquisition of new evidence or new hypotheses may lead us to reject previously accepted hypotheses, accept previously rejected ones, and leave in suspense others we previously accepted or rejected. And I also assume that the convergence of multiple lines of proof involving testimonial, photographic, medical and even acoustical evidence will be among the strongest indications of truth in a matter of this kind. Are we in agreement?

Also Doug, while you''re here and in light of your experience with witnesses, I'm wondering if the item I've indicated could have led observers from the rear to conclude that there was a bullet hole in the windshield?

Note: This is speculation, a question; not an offer of proof.

Again, the best to you,

Jerry

Jerry...since this is an OPEN FORUM, I will take the liberty of replying (instead of only one person, as you suggest).

In the photo you show, the "spiral nebula" effect is hidden behind the sun visor.

Jack

Thank you Mr. White. You may have missed my point which was that from the rear there may appear to be a bullet hole just above the metal near the bottom of the glass.

However, that does raise an interesting point.

1) You and Jim are deeply committed to the "spiral nebula" and its location is well known.

2) You and Jim often rely on eyewitness testimony to impeach the photographic record - particularly the Zapruder film.

Yet, two of the eyewitness repeatedly cited for a bullet hole in the windshield don't place the bullet hole anywhere near the "spiral nebula"

From Jim Fetzer citing Livingstone on Dudman ..."there was a through-and-through hole in the upper left margin of the windshield."

From Larry Sneed on Officer Stavis Ellis...."To the right of where the driver was, just above the metal near the bottom of the glass there appeared to be a bullet hole."

So I'm wondering how the "spiral nebula" managed to find its way to "just above the metal near the bottom of the glass."

Why are you telling us where the bullet hole is when Officer Ellis, who was there, has already told us it wasn't anywhere near the "spiral nebula"?

And if the bullet hole is where the eyewitness places it, doesn't that mean that whatever the "spiral nebula" is, it isn't a bullet hole prior to Zapruder 255?

Jerry

Hello Doug,

I've had a heavy day of real vs. cyber life so I'm not able to give the detailed reply your thoughtful post deserves. I'm going to reserve until I have more time/energy. However, I did want to make one quick correction. All of the Secret Service materials presented to the Warren Commission were initially classified. The official reason offered was because they contained information about SS policies and procedures that could possibly be used to compromise Presidential security. (Yes, I know, the horse had left the barn.) However, the materials were declassified in short order and available to anyone who visited the archives. Tink published Rowley's letter in an appendix to SSID and David Lifton spotted the reference to Taylor's report and had it in hand shortly thereafter. So the Taylor report was out in the open in 1967 at the latest. I understand what you're trying to say, but the fact is that the "hole in the glass" report was generally available and made well known by David Lifton while the recanting affidavit was classified and withheld from public view for more than 20 years. Even after it was declassified it remained unnoticed for more than ten years until I tripped over it.

Best to you,

Jerry

....Jerry gave an explanation of why he statement of Taylor was kept hidden but does not explain why Taylor's statement verifying that he had clearly seen a hole in the windshield was labeled "Top Secret" but the affidavit atating there was no hole was not.....

[Pamela Brown]

Just a point to consider -- when we talk about obfuscation in relation to the Zapruder film, there are very simple categories that can accomplish that end without any red flags being raised (though they should).

One example of this is the fact that LIFE did not supply to the WC the best copy of the Zapruder it had. Therefore, whatever conclusions or inferences the WC made based on what they saw in the Zapruder were made based on evidence that was muddier than what they could have had.

Another area is the MPI Image of an Assassination. We are supposed to consider these films the latest and greatest versions of the Zapruder; but, in fact, they have not much definition and it is impossible to view detail. Was this simply an oversight?

Also, the version of the Zapruder Groden aired on Geraldo, though he claims to have enhanced it, scoped it, whatever, was of inferior quality in terms of color and definition compared to a very good copy. Why was this the public not provided with at least a screening of the best copy available?

Add these things to the so-called 'accidental' splices in at least two places on the original (just how do you burn film like that unless you are trying to alter it in the first place?), the missing copy of the film that we are apparently supposed to forget, plus the rogue copies, and we can get an idea of the scope of the shell game, if not hoax, being perpetrated on us right before our eyes.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Just a point to consider -- when we talk about obfuscation in relation to the Zapruder film, there are very simple categories that can accomplish that end without any red flags being raised (though they should).

One example of this is the fact that LIFE did not supply to the WC the best copy of the Zapruder it had. Therefore, whatever conclusions or inferences the WC made based on what they saw in the Zapruder were made based on evidence that was muddier than what they could have had.

Another area is the MPI Image of an Assassination. We are supposed to consider these films the latest and greatest versions of the Zapruder; but, in fact, they have not much definition and it is impossible to view detail. Was this simply an oversight?

Also, the version of the Zapruder Groden aired on Geraldo, though he claims to have enhanced it, scoped it, whatever, was of inferior quality in terms of color and definition compared to a very good copy. Why was this the public not provided with at least a screening of the best copy available?

Add these things to the so-called 'accidental' splices in at least two places on the original (just how do you burn film like that unless you are trying to alter it in the first place?), the missing copy of the film that we are apparently supposed to forget, plus the rogue copies, and we can get an idea of the scope of the shell game, if not hoax, being perpetrated on us right before our eyes.

Why do you think LIFE supplied the WC with any "copy" of the film? You seem unaware of the copy of the film they had to use, and unaware that Orth, from LIFE, brought the original film and projected it for the WC and some others (FBI, SS, whomever) on a day in Feb '64 (going on memory for Feb) ... and then sent the film to a NJ lab and had the first generation slides made, 3 sets, one for the FBI, one for the SS ... and one for the WC.

The Groden/Geraldo viewing. You ask why the public was not "provided" with a screening of the best copy available. The public wasn't "provided" any copy by anyone who had control of the film. That was Groden's bootleg copy he'd had tucked away for years. Do you know the provenance of the copy he had ... ever since he was a lab technician at a NJ photo lab ...

Barb :-)

[David G. Healy]

Just a point to consider -- when we talk about obfuscation in relation to the Zapruder film, there are very simple categories that can accomplish that end without any red flags being raised (though they should).

One example of this is the fact that LIFE did not supply to the WC the best copy of the Zapruder it had. Therefore, whatever conclusions or inferences the WC made based on what they saw in the Zapruder were made based on evidence that was muddier than what they could have had.

Another area is the MPI Image of an Assassination. We are supposed to consider these films the latest and greatest versions of the Zapruder; but, in fact, they have not much definition and it is impossible to view detail. Was this simply an oversight?

Also, the version of the Zapruder Groden aired on Geraldo, though he claims to have enhanced it, scoped it, whatever, was of inferior quality in terms of color and definition compared to a very good copy. Why was this the public not provided with at least a screening of the best copy available?

Add these things to the so-called 'accidental' splices in at least two places on the original (just how do you burn film like that unless you are trying to alter it in the first place?), the missing copy of the film that we are apparently supposed to forget, plus the rogue copies, and we can get an idea of the scope of the shell game, if not hoax, being perpetrated on us right before our eyes.

Why do you think LIFE supplied the WC with any "copy" of the film? You seem unaware of the copy of the film they had to use, and unaware that Orth, from LIFE, brought the original film and projected it for the WC and some others (FBI, SS, whomever) on a day in Feb '64 (going on memory for Feb) ... and then sent the film to a NJ lab and had the first generation slides made, 3 sets, one for the FBI, one for the SS ... and one for the WC.

The Groden/Geraldo viewing. You ask why the public was not "provided" with a screening of the best copy available. The public wasn't "provided" any copy by anyone who had control of the film. That was Groden's bootleg copy he'd had tucked away for years. Do you know the provenance of the copy he had ... ever since he was a lab technician at a NJ photo lab ...

Barb :-)

considering the only intended client to view the Zapruder was/still is the Warren Commission and staff. They saw the film late February. By any account that leaves a few months before their screening date to do a wee-bit of "film alteration."

Moe Weitzman's lab was in New Jersey? Here all along I thought it was in New York. And thanks for pointing out the alleged Zapruder film was kept from general public viewing for years (till the Groden-GERALDO expose)... yet, even those years when Vietnam combat footage (from the mid 60's on), complete with US flag draped shipping casket arrival (here on the homeland) was network (ABC, NBC, CBS) staple fair during the evening dinner hour here in the USofA... Oh those tender American tummies...

Perhaps this is the time when one asks, just what the hell was the Warren Commission tasked to DO/FIND? In the spirit of Bill Miller:

[Martin Hinrichs]

Hi Jerry.

I like to ask you a couple of questions before i went into detail regarding my improved windshield crack study.

It has been said in your/Barb and Josiah's article that:

John Hunt, working from photos he obtained in the Archives, has come up with an ingenious but simple proof that the “windshield switch theory” is wrong. He compared Frazier’s photo of the windshield taken in the wee hours of November 23rd with a later photo of the windshield taken by the HSCA circa 1978:

As Hunt points out, “cracks don’t go away.” If cracks were present in the windshield when photographed by Frazier on November 23rd while the windshield was still attached to the limousine and those cracks are not present in the HSCA windshield in 1978, then we are dealing with two different pieces of evidence. However, the photos show a marked similarity in the position and number of the cracks. The photos indicate that the two windshields are the same and that the Lifton/Fetzer “windshield switch theory” is wrong.

Can you, or anyone else guide me to the original article from John Hunt's windshield study?

I can't find it here nor on Lancer or Google. Is it hidden in alt.assassination groups?

What i like to see is the whole expert's report from John Hunt about this ingenious but simple proof .

Another question i have is.......what is the source of this photograph taken ca. 1978 for the HSCA:

Ok, i can't find it in my files nor on any other online source (Mary Ferrell).

Who made it and for what purpose?

Thank you forward.

As i said, every help is much appreciated.

Martin

[Jonathan Cohen]

Also, the version of the Zapruder Groden aired on Geraldo, though he claims to have enhanced it, scoped it, whatever, was of inferior quality in terms of color and definition compared to a very good copy. Why was this the public not provided with at least a screening of the best copy available?

Add these things to the so-called 'accidental' splices in at least two places on the original (just how do you burn film like that unless you are trying to alter it in the first place?), the missing copy of the film that we are apparently supposed to forget, plus the rogue copies, and we can get an idea of the scope of the shell game, if not hoax, being perpetrated on us right before our eyes.

Why does it raise a red flag that the copy Groden showed on "Geraldo" was not "the best copy available?" The film was not officially available to researchers at that point, so he was working from the best copy he had access to. Are you implying that he purposefully didn't screen his best version? If so, what on earth would be the point in him doing that?

As for "rogue copies," why are these automatically part of some "shell game" or "hoax?" It has been well-documented that when the Z film was in New Orleans during the Garrison trial that it was heavily bootlegged. It is then logical to assume that further copies would be made of these copies, resulting in an influx of not very good dubs into the research community and beyond.

I'm just trying to understand why these things lend credence to arguments about the authenticity of the overall Z film.